Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: >>> I’d write #f with a comment above. I believe that’s what’s done in >>> nonguix, Guix-Science-Nonfree, and the likes. >>> >>> Hmm actually Guix-Science-Nonfree uses @@ … 🤦 >> As does nonguix. >> >> Given this vast sample size (N=2) of folks "holding it wrong", should we >> "just" export the symbol, or look for an alternative solution? > > Well OK, let’s export ‘license’.
Thanks for the permission, patch attached.
>From d3be0e93cda3ca5c5921411807c4d96a5f2bfc4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Message-ID: <d3be0e93cda3ca5c5921411807c4d96a5f2bfc4f.1782563451.git.~@wolfsden.cz> From: Tomas Volf <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:28:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] licenses: Export license constructor. After some back-and-forth on the mailing list it was agreed to export the constructor, effectively reverting the revert done in 1597613488d. * guix/licenses.scm (define-module): Export `license'. Co-authored-by: zimoun <[email protected]> --- guix/licenses.scm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm index 710e36e2572..bccfbbedee1 100644 --- a/guix/licenses.scm +++ b/guix/licenses.scm @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ (define-module (guix licenses) #:use-module (srfi srfi-9) - #:export (license? license-name license-uri license-comment + #:export (license license? license-name license-uri license-comment afl2.1 afl3.0 agpl1 agpl3 agpl3+ apsl2 -- 2.54.0
Tomas -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
